Go to about the two-thirds mark and go from there. Sawyer even revisits it later to make sure it wasn't just a slip on his part. The nation's top intelligence official admits did not know about the arrests.

There is no excuse for this. Might be a great guy, but this is indefensible.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Probably didn't know because they were the usual 'keep the sheep on their toes' local trumped-up nothingness.

Happens a lot this time of year - is traditional.

How it works is like this:

1. Massive coverage of arrests
2. Saturation analysis from cover to cover of every media outlet
3. Quiet release of suspects without charge - no media coverage
4. Sheep's 'consciousness registers yet another 'foiled threat'
This has the advantage of both keeping the threat alive and reinforcing the belief that the authorities are actually succeeding in combatting the threat. Even though it is non-existent.

Let's look at somme figures in the UK (these are Home Office figures) :

In the last year 101,248 people were stopped and searched in England, Wales and Scotland under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

In one year. 101,248 stopped and searched. Think about it.

It's a questionable practice and a violation of rights imo but people argue its needed for terror prevention. So how many arrests?

Zero.

The Home Office statistics also showed no terror suspects had been held in custody before charge for longer than 14 days since 2007.

Despite wanting this time limit extended.....NO suspects held in custody and later charged.

It gets worse:

From 9/11 until last year...1,471 people were arrested for terrorism.

1471 ARRESTED in the entire time since 911.

Only 340 were charged - that's around 4% of those arrested were charged.

Four Percent.

340 people.

Ten Years.

And of these 144 were found not guilty.

So that leaves 196 convictions.

Of the 'terrorists' currently in UK jails there were many who had nothing whatsoever to do with Islamism but rather were arrested for domestic extremism or separatism, mainly for animal rights protests.

So, the question arises: why sack him? Why does he need to know?

It's just not real. He only has jurisdiction concerning the US's own phoney set-up which although undoubtedly similar, will necessarily be of a different character.

Go to about the two-thirds mark and go from there. Sawyer even revisits it later to make sure it wasn't just a slip on his part. The nation's top intelligence official admits did not know about the arrests.

There is no excuse for this. Might be a great guy, but this is indefensible.

Maybe David Cameron should inform him what is going on in his country.

Probably didn't know because they were the usual 'keep the sheep on their toes' local trumped-up nothingness.

That's irrelevant. He's part of the same security establishment you despise. How could he not know what "falsehoods" are being put out there?

Quote:

Happens a lot this time of year - is traditional.

How it works is like this:

1. Massive coverage of arrests
2. Saturation analysis from cover to cover of every media outlet
3. Quiet release of suspects without charge - no media coverage
4. Sheep's 'consciousness registers yet another 'foiled threat'
This has the advantage of both keeping the threat alive and reinforcing the belief that the authorities are actually succeeding in combatting the threat. Even though it is non-existent.

Again, even if true...irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote:

Let's look at somme figures in the UK (these are Home Office figures) :

In the last year 101,248 people were stopped and searched in England, Wales and Scotland under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

In one year. 101,248 stopped and searched. Think about it.

It's a questionable practice and a violation of rights imo but people argue its needed for terror prevention. So how many arrests?

Zero.

The Home Office statistics also showed no terror suspects had been held in custody before charge for longer than 14 days since 2007.

Despite wanting this time limit extended.....NO suspects held in custody and later charged.

Stop and search is highly questionable, I agree. Any search without cause is highly questionable. This is the basis of my problem with our airport security. Searching bags, scanning them and walking through a metal detector are one thing. Naked body scans and putting hands in underwear elastic is another. Clear violation of our fourth amendment. Speaking of...what are the laws re: unreasonable search and seizure in UK? I'm not aware.

Quote:

It gets worse:

From 9/11 until last year...1,471 people were arrested for terrorism.

1471 ARRESTED in the entire time since 911.

Only 340 were charged - that's around 4% of those arrested were charged.

Four Percent.

340 people.

Ten Years.

And of these 144 were found not guilty.

So that leaves 196 convictions.

Not sure I see the problem. They were arrested and many were released and not charged. Of those who were charged, some were found not guilty. Seems to me that's this thing we have called the "criminal justice system."

Quote:

Of the 'terrorists' currently in UK jails there were many who had nothing whatsoever to do with Islamism but rather were arrested for domestic extremism or separatism, mainly for animal rights protests.

Can you support that, please? I've heard of people being charged with "terrorism" when that term really shouldn't apply. I have no idea what the numbers are in this regard, though.

Quote:

So, the question arises: why sack him? Why does he need to know?

It's just not real. He only has jurisdiction concerning the US's own phoney set-up which although undoubtedly similar, will necessarily be of a different character.

Why? Because he is our top intelligence official. How can he not know about these major arrests on the day they happened...even if they ARE bogus? Their veracity is not the point. They still happened. It's like not knowing the weatherman is predicting 40 inches of snow. It might not be legit, but he predicted it, causing responsible people to take certain actions to prepare.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

That's irrelevant. He's part of the same security establishment you despise. How could he not know what "falsehoods" are being put out there?

I would assume that the falsehoods are of several levels: International, National and Local etc.

Perhaps this was a local one, why involve the US - and btw, I can pretty much guarantee that these guys will be let off with no charge and I'll be back on here posting details when it happens.

Quote:

Again, even if true...irrelevant to this discussion.

Not really. It is supporting evidence that most such arrests are routine and meaningless. Given that, why inform the US?

Quote:

Stop and search is highly questionable, I agree. Any search without cause is highly questionable. This is the basis of my problem with our airport security. Searching bags, scanning them and walking through a metal detector are one thing. Naked body scans and putting hands in underwear elastic is another. Clear violation of our fourth amendment. Speaking of...what are the laws re: unreasonable search and seizure in UK? I'm not aware.

The relevant law is the Terrorism Act 2004 and it has draconian powers:

Quote:

The use of these powers has grown fourfold, from 33,177 times in 2004 to more than 117,200 in 2008.

The Metropolitan police have used them most, but 11 other forces in England and Wales also make routine use of them.

A political furore ensued when it was disclosed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion since 2001.

That last sentence in bold should give one cause for concern regardless of political affiliation.

Actually this act has been judged as illegal by the European Court but the UK refuses to abide by the ruling.

Quote:

The European judges said the power to search a person's clothing and belongings in public included an element of humiliation and embarrassment which was a clear interference with the right to privacy.

But they also criticised the way in which the police use of stop and search powers was authorised. There is no requirement that the powers be considered "necessary" only "expedient".

The sole condition was that the search had to look for articles used in connection with terrorism but this covered many things commonly carried by people in the street. Police did not even have to have grounds for suspecting such articles were present.

Which is quite concerning....

Quote:

Not sure I see the problem. They were arrested and many were released and not charged. Of those who were charged, some were found not guilty. Seems to me that's this thing we have called the "criminal justice system."

It's not a problem on one level as it shows the Courts are working but it is a problem on the level below if the Police are continually bringing these cases before the Courts.

They could, for example, be using the resources thus wasted to stop crime.

Quote:

Can you support that, please? I've heard of people being charged with "terrorism" when that term really shouldn't apply. I have no idea what the numbers are in this regard, though.

From London Times (hardly Left-wing):

Quote:

ANIMAL rights activists who glorify militant acts against economic targets and laboratories are to face prosecution under terror laws aimed at al-Qaeda supporters.
The move, confirmed last night by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, means that extremists convicted under the new legislation could be jailed for seven years and suspects held without charge for up to three months.

This was in 2005 when they brought the law in - and not the use of the word 'glorify'. It does not say 'perpetrate' as that was already included.

CONTROVERSIAL new laws to tackle international terrorism could be used to put British National Party members and animal rights activists under house arrest without criminal trial, a government adviser said yesterday.

Why? Because he is our top intelligence official. How can he not know about these major arrests on the day they happened...even if they ARE bogus? Their veracity is not the point. They still happened. It's like not knowing the weatherman is predicting 40 inches of snow. It might not be legit, but he predicted it, causing responsible people to take certain actions to prepare.

You might have a point there.... but would you say this if it was a Bush admin?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I would assume that the falsehoods are of several levels: International, National and Local etc.

Perhaps this was a local one, why involve the US - and btw, I can pretty much guarantee that these guys will be let off with no charge and I'll be back on here posting details when it happens.

It wasn't local. It was international news. Get real. We shouldn't be getting our intel from CNN.

Quote:

Not really. It is supporting evidence that most such arrests are routine and meaningless. Given that, why inform the US?

It was ON THE NEWS! WTF?

Quote:

The relevant law is the Terrorism Act 2004 and it has draconian powers:

That last sentence in bold should give one cause for concern regardless of political affiliation.

Actually this act has been judged as illegal by the European Court but the UK refuses to abide by the ruling.

Which is quite concerning....[/quote]

Agreed. That is bad. Very bad.

Quote:

It's not a problem on one level as it shows the Courts are working but it is a problem on the level below if the Police are continually bringing these cases before the Courts.

They could, for example, be using the resources thus wasted to stop crime.

I would say it's not black and white. Clearly, some of these people (say, 10%) are being convicted of terrorism charges. We shouldn't just let those people walk. It seems they need to be more judicious in their application of these charges.

Quote:

From London Times (hardly Left-wing):

This was in 2005 when they brought the law in - and not the use of the word 'glorify'. It does not say 'perpetrate' as that was already included.